A Dec 31, 2018 post (Conspiracy Theories and Traditional Catholicism) mysteriously attracted a few comments. Then the mystery was solved ... Dr. Chojnowski cited my old article on his blog here and issued a challenge.
First, here's what I said about his conspiracy theory:
Because he is trying to 'prove' his conspiracy theory concerning Sister Lucy - namely that, like the 1980s theory that Pope Paul VI was 'swapped out' with a double, that Sister Lucy was replaced by a 'double'.
To demonstrate this he is trotting out a number of expert opinions that confirm his theory.
I find it laughable that he relies on the 'photographic evidence' and seems to dismiss the evidence provided by relatives because they were 'behind a screen'. There's more to recognizing a person than just the unimpeded visual aspects.
But debunking this theory is not what I want to highlight ...
Here's his challenge:
Dr. Chojnowski: Here is my response to Tradicat who put up an article on "Traditional Catholicism and Conspiracies." The link gets you to the article ---- does any one know who this is --- and my response to the article is below.
Have you actually looked at the evidence? Does evidence matter or are you so politically correct in your mindset that any thing labeled "conspiracy theory" is automatically rejected by you? Other than DNA, photographic AND written evidence is the only evidence that we can have for now. If the Vatican will allow us to get DNA information than that will help in the process of determining if there were two woman or only one. I did not hire experts to "prove my thesis." I don't have any idea where you came up with that. I certainly never told you "my thesis." I had not thesis before the tests came in except for a belief that there seemed to be a problem that had to be looked into. The expert reports are definitive and more are forthcoming. Whatever the relatives say, and remember, the real Sister Lucy has not been on the scene for 60 years, does not change the empirical facts of the case. Have you ever cross examined these relatives or has anyone you know? I do not know the experts that were consulted. They have no reason to stake their professional reputations on a lie. They get their fee no matter their judgment on the evidence. Some of the judgments were made by facial recognition programs, nothing to do with human judgment. Please look at the evidence at sisterlucytruth.org and then get back to me.
There's a lot packed in the challenge, but I'll cut right to what is perhaps the crux of his argument:
Other than DNA, photographic AND written evidence is the only evidence that we can have for now.
It is quite simple to forge documents of a person living in a convent and try to pass them off. However, 'proving' that something is a forgery does not prove that a person has been replaced by a doppelgänger. Why? Because you need to link the forgery to a specific person - the forger. This is not possible unless you have a witness of the forger, who is trying to impersonate Sr. Lucia, writing the document in question.
Otherwise, there is no chain of evidence.
That leaves us with the photographic evidence ... or does it?
In a real investigation, accounts from multiple eye witnesses would weight heavier than expert opinion.
So are there any witnesses who had contact with Sr. Lucia over the time in which the 'swap' allegedly occurred?
The alleged swap happened when ... pre and post 1967 (sorry if I got this wrong)? Some of my friends recently took a trip to Fatima and spoke with some of Lucy's relatives? Do none of them overlap this period and could provide testimony?
This would be an important bit of information, interviewing people who spoke with Sr. Lucia, don't you think?
After digging, it appears that there were relatives who visited Sr. Lucia, as noted in this article by fatima.org:
Sr. Lucia Silenced: Editors and reporters from Catholic media immediately sought reaction
from Sr. Lucia, but this proved futile. They found that Sr. Lucia was
strictly forbidden to speak about the Third Secret to anyone, and was
allowed no visitors other than close friends and relatives. After 1960,
even her longtime confessor (since the 1930’s), Fr. José da Silva
Aparicio was not allowed to see her when he returned to Portugal from
Brazil — even though in the early 1950’s he was free to do so.
Is there no one who spans this mysterious time frame? Well in the 80's there was someone who met with her and I wonder ... how long did she know Sr. Lucy (again from the same article).
Tradical
ReplyDeleteIt seems easy to label complex situations as conspiracy theories. 911 is one. People seem to wave their hand in disgust as soon as you try to mention certain points, they treat you like an idiot since the majority doesn't talk about it and the government and the news still label 2 planes for bringing down the twins. I know there are a lot of theories as to the plot but the main argument is the science. 2 planes and a couple of hours can do the same thing that months worth of demolition preparation can do, seriously? Those planes cannot damage a steel reinforced concrete core enough to cause a perfect demolition. If you look at the picture of the 1st tower damage you will see a hole as big as the wing span of 767 which does not make any sense at all.
The main point in commenting is not the 911, but where do you get your stamp of "conspiracy theory", is it the news? From what I see in your latest writings tend to be parallel with today's news stories. A traditional Catholic knows V2 is a conspiracy and not a conspiracy theory, I hope you still have that perspective to believe the devil's minions are behind it all because if you don't I worry for you. I already worry for you with your promotion of the CIC, such a mix of bi-ritual priests who are the main speakers.
MM
Hi MM,
ReplyDeleteTo be specific, I do not label "complex situations as conspiracy theories". I apply the label to overly simplified explanations for complex events, especially when they reject the explanations of the authorities - just because it's from the authorities.
I also get really suspicious when various "PhD's" opine on the event - in areas that are outside of their competence. In my career I have worked with dozens of PhDs and realize that they are smart humans who make huge gaffs when they step outside their area of expertise.
V2 ... what about it? It is a fact that a small minority of modernist clerics hijacked the council. It is also a fact that a small minority of faithful clerics fought against this. It is also a fact that the majority of clerics sided with whatever the Pope decided and he decided often with the modernist minority. It is not a conspiracy theory, it was out in the open all the time.
CIC ... I promoted the conference because the enemy is both organized and united, while the Traditional Catholic clans are not. Fundamentally we are all Catholic and the best way to resolve the disagreements between the various 'clans' is for them to get to know each other, understand their principles and work together when possible.
Bi-Ritual Priests: I know some of the bi-ritual priests and I have personally seen what happens as they start to say the Tridentine Mass: They change and become better priests - especially if they can handle the anti-Tridentine Mass pressure that is exerted on them. I have also have met and spoken with one of the speakers and have no cause for concern on that point.
Now ... with respect to Dr. Chojnowski's conspiracy theory that an imposter was substituted for the real Sister Lucia sometime in the 60's. He couldn't reconcile his belief of Sister Lucia with some of the actions. So he decided to see if she was swapped out.
So far his theory is on shaky ground because there are witnesses that span the substitution timeframe and didn't notice it.
Having recourse to 'expert opinion' in this case is unpardonable and extremely flawed.
I am examining the vaccine issue right now, but I may dig into Dr. Chojnowski's experts and their reports at a later time.
P^3
Correction:
ReplyDeleteFrom: I know some of the bi-ritual priests
To: I know some bi-ritual priests